Half of women are now childless at thirty for the first time ever
Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures show 53 per cent of women born in 1991 were childless by their 30th birthday last year. The proportion was the highest on record.
JFL Chad-only Roastie apocalypse: Half of women are now childless at thirty for the first time ever
Cucked world
W
More and more women have committed for life that either they get to marry and have a family with Chad or nothing.
This is what happens if you make sexual revolution bullshit. Foids now became whores and because of them humanity will end.
"There is this general philosophy that can (and should) be used to apply to all things. Continuatism is the practical idea that, essentially, if you wish to see your philosophy, whether it be religious, political, a lifestyle, or anything else, spread among the population, be implemented by the government or prevailing social systems, or even just not completely die out, one has a moral responsibility to breed because this is how philosophies (religious, political, or otherwise) are primarily spread and sustained over any period of time.
The problem continuatism contends to address is the massive problem of the societies that I personally believe are the best (such as those in the West or Japan) are dying out; those philosophies which I believe are the best (such as atheism) are dying out. "Dying out" because there are more deaths than births and they are declining as a percentage of the global population and often in absolute terms. In addition, the refusal of Western Europe, the USA, Japan, and other wealthy countries to heavily shame all women who have had fewer than 3 children and are over 30 has resulted in the people with the highest IQs having the fewest children, see the negative correlation between fertility and IQ. The inevitable result of this WILL eventually be idiocracy, it would be impossible or unfathomable for it not to. This is a HUGE problem, and NEEDS to be addressed. The problem of our current, dysgenic society.
Concisely, it is easy to point out Mormons v.s. the Shakers-the Mormons continued and growing relevance is statistically primarily because they breed and indoctrinate their children, whereas the Shakers refused to breed and thus died out.
Continuatism also makes the assertion that certain genes that are more likely to lead to certain philosophies are likely to exist, and thus by breeding, one is more likely than not protecting the integrity of one's philosophy, WHATEVER it may be, both genetically and environmentally. Thus continuatism is perfectly compatible with determinism.
If one simply does not breed when one is capable of doing so, one is contributing to the downfall of one's own ideology, as other ideologies CAN and WILL breed and crowd one's own ideology out.
Even antinatalists ought to breed in order to spread antinatalism, so that in the future, rather than going the way of the Shakers (atheists, for example, are declining as a percentage of the global population. This is bad for atheism), they would be a significant force, able to enforce antinatalist policy GLOBALLY on non-antinatalists. Even this, continuatism posits, would only be good for antinatalism if it was applied equally to all populations, so that antinatalists do not end up anti-natalisting themselves out of existence.
If even antinatalism can be looked at through a continuatistic lens, then what's YOUR philosophy's excuse?
Any philosophy, be it Christianity, Islam, atheism, agnosticism, natalism, antinatalism, efilism, progressivism, conservatism, communism, fascism, anarchism, libertarianism, etc., are best off adopting a continuatistic outlook. Many religions already implicitly or explicitly do, so we have to beat them in the arms race, otherwise, we will be conquered and destroyed by ideologies more concerned with toxically hypermasculine domination than anything deep or meaningful.
Continuatism posits that, just like how pacifism is immoral and that, if one wishes to preserve justice, one has a responsibility to become violent in self-defense to the utmost degree to defend against the aggressively unjust whether one wants to or not, to not breed and spread one's own genes (presuming that one believes that they are the most just or lead to the most just outcomes compared to other philosophies) is the moral equivalent of pacifism, and thus immoral in the same way pacifism is immoral. We take a "peace through strength" outlook on the world.
Some people may say that this will lead to a world of fighting and conflict; however, I believe it will lead to an idyllic world of peace, because the best minds put their heads together and figure out how to outbreed the worst ones, thus improving the gene pool. It is a eugenic philosophy, as all things should be.
Some may say that this sounds like eugenics, and the Nazis did eugenics, therefore eugenics bad. However, the Nazis only "did" eugenics for one generation. We've never seen what happens when eugenics are tried for, say, ten generations. Furthermore, unlike what the Nazis did (eugenocide), there is nothing inherently violent or genocidal about continuatism.
Some may say that this will lead to overpopulation. However, when intelligent people are breeding, there is never an overpopulation issue. A world with 100 billion Elon Musks would not suffer from overpopulation; they would just put their heads together and establish a LOGICAL solution, that us normies couldn't possibly imagine. But a world with 100 billion Ugandans would be a humanitarian disaster, due to poverty and all the violence, warfare, disease, and starvation that would ensue (see: Malthusianism). I am not a Malthusian when it comes to the RIGHT kinds of people, but I AM when it comes to the WRONG kinds of people. Ayn Rand would have made a good point, if only she would have advocated for her multi-ethnic group of elites to breed, thus defeated the "enemy" (the low-IQ, barbaric hordes).
r/Continuatism exists, with no members of course."
The problem continuatism contends to address is the massive problem of the societies that I personally believe are the best (such as those in the West or Japan) are dying out; those philosophies which I believe are the best (such as atheism) are dying out. "Dying out" because there are more deaths than births and they are declining as a percentage of the global population and often in absolute terms. In addition, the refusal of Western Europe, the USA, Japan, and other wealthy countries to heavily shame all women who have had fewer than 3 children and are over 30 has resulted in the people with the highest IQs having the fewest children, see the negative correlation between fertility and IQ. The inevitable result of this WILL eventually be idiocracy, it would be impossible or unfathomable for it not to. This is a HUGE problem, and NEEDS to be addressed. The problem of our current, dysgenic society.
Concisely, it is easy to point out Mormons v.s. the Shakers-the Mormons continued and growing relevance is statistically primarily because they breed and indoctrinate their children, whereas the Shakers refused to breed and thus died out.
Continuatism also makes the assertion that certain genes that are more likely to lead to certain philosophies are likely to exist, and thus by breeding, one is more likely than not protecting the integrity of one's philosophy, WHATEVER it may be, both genetically and environmentally. Thus continuatism is perfectly compatible with determinism.
If one simply does not breed when one is capable of doing so, one is contributing to the downfall of one's own ideology, as other ideologies CAN and WILL breed and crowd one's own ideology out.
Even antinatalists ought to breed in order to spread antinatalism, so that in the future, rather than going the way of the Shakers (atheists, for example, are declining as a percentage of the global population. This is bad for atheism), they would be a significant force, able to enforce antinatalist policy GLOBALLY on non-antinatalists. Even this, continuatism posits, would only be good for antinatalism if it was applied equally to all populations, so that antinatalists do not end up anti-natalisting themselves out of existence.
If even antinatalism can be looked at through a continuatistic lens, then what's YOUR philosophy's excuse?
Any philosophy, be it Christianity, Islam, atheism, agnosticism, natalism, antinatalism, efilism, progressivism, conservatism, communism, fascism, anarchism, libertarianism, etc., are best off adopting a continuatistic outlook. Many religions already implicitly or explicitly do, so we have to beat them in the arms race, otherwise, we will be conquered and destroyed by ideologies more concerned with toxically hypermasculine domination than anything deep or meaningful.
Continuatism posits that, just like how pacifism is immoral and that, if one wishes to preserve justice, one has a responsibility to become violent in self-defense to the utmost degree to defend against the aggressively unjust whether one wants to or not, to not breed and spread one's own genes (presuming that one believes that they are the most just or lead to the most just outcomes compared to other philosophies) is the moral equivalent of pacifism, and thus immoral in the same way pacifism is immoral. We take a "peace through strength" outlook on the world.
Some people may say that this will lead to a world of fighting and conflict; however, I believe it will lead to an idyllic world of peace, because the best minds put their heads together and figure out how to outbreed the worst ones, thus improving the gene pool. It is a eugenic philosophy, as all things should be.
Some may say that this sounds like eugenics, and the Nazis did eugenics, therefore eugenics bad. However, the Nazis only "did" eugenics for one generation. We've never seen what happens when eugenics are tried for, say, ten generations. Furthermore, unlike what the Nazis did (eugenocide), there is nothing inherently violent or genocidal about continuatism.
Some may say that this will lead to overpopulation. However, when intelligent people are breeding, there is never an overpopulation issue. A world with 100 billion Elon Musks would not suffer from overpopulation; they would just put their heads together and establish a LOGICAL solution, that us normies couldn't possibly imagine. But a world with 100 billion Ugandans would be a humanitarian disaster, due to poverty and all the violence, warfare, disease, and starvation that would ensue (see: Malthusianism). I am not a Malthusian when it comes to the RIGHT kinds of people, but I AM when it comes to the WRONG kinds of people. Ayn Rand would have made a good point, if only she would have advocated for her multi-ethnic group of elites to breed, thus defeated the "enemy" (the low-IQ, barbaric hordes).
r/Continuatism exists, with no members of course.
"
i love it
lmao
I’m not reading this shit."There is this general philosophy that can (and should) be used to apply to all things. Continuatism is the practical idea that, essentially, if you wish to see your philosophy, whether it be religious, political, a lifestyle, or anything else, spread among the population, be implemented by the government or prevailing social systems, or even just not completely die out, one has a moral responsibility to breed because this is how philosophies (religious, political, or otherwise) are primarily spread and sustained over any period of time.
The problem continuatism contends to address is the massive problem of the societies that I personally believe are the best (such as those in the West or Japan) are dying out; those philosophies which I believe are the best (such as atheism) are dying out. "Dying out" because there are more deaths than births and they are declining as a percentage of the global population and often in absolute terms. In addition, the refusal of Western Europe, the USA, Japan, and other wealthy countries to heavily shame all women who have had fewer than 3 children and are over 30 has resulted in the people with the highest IQs having the fewest children, see the negative correlation between fertility and IQ. The inevitable result of this WILL eventually be idiocracy, it would be impossible or unfathomable for it not to. This is a HUGE problem, and NEEDS to be addressed. The problem of our current, dysgenic society.
Concisely, it is easy to point out Mormons v.s. the Shakers-the Mormons continued and growing relevance is statistically primarily because they breed and indoctrinate their children, whereas the Shakers refused to breed and thus died out.
Continuatism also makes the assertion that certain genes that are more likely to lead to certain philosophies are likely to exist, and thus by breeding, one is more likely than not protecting the integrity of one's philosophy, WHATEVER it may be, both genetically and environmentally. Thus continuatism is perfectly compatible with determinism.
If one simply does not breed when one is capable of doing so, one is contributing to the downfall of one's own ideology, as other ideologies CAN and WILL breed and crowd one's own ideology out.
Even antinatalists ought to breed in order to spread antinatalism, so that in the future, rather than going the way of the Shakers (atheists, for example, are declining as a percentage of the global population. This is bad for atheism), they would be a significant force, able to enforce antinatalist policy GLOBALLY on non-antinatalists. Even this, continuatism posits, would only be good for antinatalism if it was applied equally to all populations, so that antinatalists do not end up anti-natalisting themselves out of existence.
If even antinatalism can be looked at through a continuatistic lens, then what's YOUR philosophy's excuse?
Any philosophy, be it Christianity, Islam, atheism, agnosticism, natalism, antinatalism, efilism, progressivism, conservatism, communism, fascism, anarchism, libertarianism, etc., are best off adopting a continuatistic outlook. Many religions already implicitly or explicitly do, so we have to beat them in the arms race, otherwise, we will be conquered and destroyed by ideologies more concerned with toxically hypermasculine domination than anything deep or meaningful.
Continuatism posits that, just like how pacifism is immoral and that, if one wishes to preserve justice, one has a responsibility to become violent in self-defense to the utmost degree to defend against the aggressively unjust whether one wants to or not, to not breed and spread one's own genes (presuming that one believes that they are the most just or lead to the most just outcomes compared to other philosophies) is the moral equivalent of pacifism, and thus immoral in the same way pacifism is immoral. We take a "peace through strength" outlook on the world.
Some people may say that this will lead to a world of fighting and conflict; however, I believe it will lead to an idyllic world of peace, because the best minds put their heads together and figure out how to outbreed the worst ones, thus improving the gene pool. It is a eugenic philosophy, as all things should be.
Some may say that this sounds like eugenics, and the Nazis did eugenics, therefore eugenics bad. However, the Nazis only "did" eugenics for one generation. We've never seen what happens when eugenics are tried for, say, ten generations. Furthermore, unlike what the Nazis did (eugenocide), there is nothing inherently violent or genocidal about continuatism.
Some may say that this will lead to overpopulation. However, when intelligent people are breeding, there is never an overpopulation issue. A world with 100 billion Elon Musks would not suffer from overpopulation; they would just put their heads together and establish a LOGICAL solution, that us normies couldn't possibly imagine. But a world with 100 billion Ugandans would be a humanitarian disaster, due to poverty and all the violence, warfare, disease, and starvation that would ensue (see: Malthusianism). I am not a Malthusian when it comes to the RIGHT kinds of people, but I AM when it comes to the WRONG kinds of people. Ayn Rand would have made a good point, if only she would have advocated for her multi-ethnic group of elites to breed, thus defeated the "enemy" (the low-IQ, barbaric hordes).
r/Continuatism exists, with no members of course.
it should be illegal for women to have children over 30. Selfish fucks have no regard for their children and give birth to autistic premature boys who are borderline mutated. then they wonder why their sons fail college and dont get girlfriends.
genetically blacklist all women over 30. put them in the database and noncompliance = permaban from society
genetically blacklist all women over 30. put them in the database and noncompliance = permaban from society
That’s a little extreme
Consequences of giving women nonwomanly work
I have no idea how and why this happens
Because this is what women want.
Women don't like men besides Chad, and they don't even like children.
World's fucked. They don't need to be mothers anyways.
This is why you dont give women rights they dont what is good for them and civilization.
The irony of it all is if they keep doing this then there will be fewer Chads in the future, not more. Sub 8 white men are being phased out. Which means white Chad is also being phased out. Chad is going extinct, he is being replaced by spics, sands and curry immigrants.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
